IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 1225 of 2004()
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHENNAN, S/O.CHENNAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :14/01/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.1225 OF 2004
-------------------------------------
Dated 14th January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ko
shy,J.
State filed this appeal contending that the respondent who
was accused of murdering his wife ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code instead of convicting him under section 304 Part II of the
Indian Penal Code. Allegation of the prosecution was that on 17.3.2000
at 7 p.m. the accused inflicted injuries on his wife by hitting with bamboo
stick and stone, in the coconut garden of Nalakath Beeran and his wife
succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode.
2. PW2, brother of the deceased, deposed that on the date of
the incident he saw the accused and deceased at Perumbathur bazar and
later deceased and accused were seen going to their house along the
road. After some time, by around 8 p.m., PW2 and his wife proceeded to
their house along the same way. They heard the cry of the deceased.
They rushed to the spot and found the deceased sitting on the side of the
way and the accused standing nearby holding the bamboo stick. PW2
saw the accused assaulting the deceased with that bamboo stick. He told
Crl.A.1225/2004 2
the accused not to assault the deceased and the accused agreed for
that. Thereafter, PW2 and his wife returned to their house. The next
day afternoon, he learned that his sister’s condition was worse. He
went to the house of his elder brother (PW1) and both of them took
the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nilambur and from there to
the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The deposition of PW2 is
not believable as he saw accused beating deceased at 8 p.m. and even
though his sister was being beaten up he came back to his house and
only on the next day he went with his brother for taking her to the
hospital. PW1 stated that the accused married the deceased and CW6
is their daughter. They have no house of their own and they were
staying in the house of one Palan. He is not aware how the deceased
sustained injuries. When he came to know about the injuries on the
deceased from PW2 he also went with him and took the deceased to
the hospital. PW3 is the neighbour. He saw the deceased lying in the
thodu in the coconut garden of Bappu Haji at 7 a.m. on the next day of
the alleged incident and accused was standing near her and the
deceased told him that accused has assaulted her with stick and hit
her with the stone. PW3 also identified the blood stained stone and
bamboo sticks seized from the place of occurrence. PW4 is the
daughter of the accused in his first wife. According to her, accused
came to that house and wanted her to give water to the deceased.
Crl.A.1225/2004 3
PW4 had not seen the incident. In 313 statement the accused denied
the incident. Since accused and deceased were living together and
they were seen together on the same day, the trial Judge found that
the injuries were caused on the deceased by the accused himself.
Since accused was very poor and was not able to engage a competent
lawyer to represent him, a legal aid counsel was arranged by the
State. Finding of the trial court is justified as while issuing Ext.P4
wound certificate, the injured stated that she was beaten by the
accused at about 7a.m. on 18.3.2000. PW9, the Associated Professor
and Deputy Police Surgeon conducted the postmortem and certified
that the deceased died of pneumonia and peritonitis resulting from
the injuries in the abdomen. According to him, the above is the
consequences of the internal injuries of the abdomen suffered by the
deceased. He also deposed that death might have been caused about
36 hours prior to the commencement of the postmortem examination.
The injuries were inflicted on 17.3.2000 and she died on 20.3.2000.
Operation was also conducted. Considering the totality of evidence,
the trial court noticed that PWs 1 and 2 were not able to state the
correct date or time, but, it was also found that they must have seen
that the deceased was ill-treated by the accused and on that ground
their evidence cannot be totally ignored. In any event, the deceased
was brought to the hospital on 18.3.2000 and her statement to the
Crl.A.1225/2004 4
doctor can be believed. After considering the medical evidence, the
court found that the deceased died due to the injuries inflicted by the
accused and this is a fit case for punishing the accused under section
304 part II of IPC and sentenced him to under go rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six years. The contention of the
appellant State that the accused did not offer proper explanation was
considered by the trial court and found the accused guilty under
section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled law that in
the case of acquittal, appellate court can interfere only if the findings
are perverse or there is patent illegality. In this case evidence would
show that conviction under section 304 Part II is justified and no
interference is required in the the same. We also note that the
appeal was filed with a delay of 694 days in 2004 and notice to the
accused was not served so far. Taking all these facts together, we
see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
tks